can you find any links to this FX-8550? i have been searching the internet for any and all information and have found none. like i said, all information about steamroller has been limited to the 9450 and the 9650. you said they aren't true steamroller, but that is all i can find in regards to steamroller. >.>

Of course not. The CPUs do not exist yet, and AMD is always quiet until launch. This has not however prevented information on Steamroller itself from surfacing though.

Die shrink to 28nm, fewer cache misses, stronger decode units that remove that 20% multi-thread "penalty" from using modules instead of cores, and "supposed" (I don't know if I believe it) 15% IPS, be it clockspeed or IPC. Probably a combination of the two.

We've known all this since 2012.

And once again, the FX-9000 are Piledriver. Not Steamroller, and not "untrue Steamroller", they are 100%, true blue, nothing else Piledriver. Granted they are binned better, but it's the exact same chip. They call them "Centurion", and it's selling point is that it is 5Ghz Piledriver, because when you chips OC like mad, why not?

If you refer to the completely unsourced "AMDFX" blog, that can't even follow standard naming conventions and is pure guesswork... then I can't help you. Find better sources I guess, because that guy is not related to AMD in any way.

If it was as easy as only playing SC2 then it would be an easy choice of the Xeon. But because I am going to be running XSplit at the same time to stream my games with commentary it becomes harder. I'm not sure how big of a hit the Xeon will take from XSplit as opposed to the FX-8350. I know that the FX CPU is better for streaming, but since it isn't the common question for reviewers, people don't run benchmarks of streaming and playing a game. In fact the first benchmark I have ever seen of that was in this thread by Timeofdoom and it was for the FX-8350. With the popularity of streaming on the rise I think that more benchmarkers should include that in their tests.

Unfortunately, I can't really run a benchmark that compares with him because of running a 1440p monitor instead of 1080p, and also having a considerably more powerful GPU. And I can't run the same scenario as he is running. So nothing I could do would be comparable. Nor is my internet upload is good enough for streaming. So nothing I could do would compare to what he is getting.

I would say this though, no matter if you are streaming or not, you are going to want the most powerful CPU in terms of actual gameplay. Because lower framerates are going to be lowered even more by the hit you take when streaming. Whereas if you have a higher base framerate in your game, then that will take less of a hit when streaming.

When it comes down to it, you are still going to want the most powerful CPU you can get in terms of actual gameplay. Because, lets take a 200/200 army clash for example, the stress is going to be on your CPU (particularly threads 0 & 2 on the Xeon, or threads 0,1 on the AMD FX). You are going to need the most power you can get to eliminate the 200/200 lag you are going to get BEFORE even taking into consideration the streaming hit.

When it comes down to it, you are still going to want the most powerful CPU you can get in terms of actual gameplay. Because, lets take a 200/200 army clash for example, the stress is going to be on your CPU (particularly threads 0 & 2 on the Xeon, or threads 0,1 on the AMD FX). You are going to need the most power you can get to eliminate the 200/200 lag you are going to get BEFORE even taking into consideration the streaming hit.

I don't play SCII, so I don't know what exactly the following benchmark resembles when it comes to competitive pvp but it is pretty disturbing nevertheless.

I don't play anywhere near ultra settings. Most things are set to low, maybe two settings on medium, and the textures on high that way I can see invisible units better and I don't ever get any 200/200 arm clash lag. It makes it a lot easier to focus too since there isn't all this pretty flashy stuff distracting me. For me Ultra settings are only for campaign. Most benchmarks are going to compare settings on ultra and that is why you will get atrocious frame rates. My Phenom II x4 965 BE did perfectly fine when I wasn't streaming and I could play with my settings on high (not ultra) if I wanted with the only lag being in those big 200/200 battles. If I streamed I got the awful frame rates you posted even with settings on low.

I don't play anywhere near ultra settings. Most things are set to low, maybe two settings on medium, and the textures on high that way I can see invisible units better and I don't ever get any 200/200 arm clash lag. It makes it a lot easier to focus too since there isn't all this pretty flashy stuff distracting me. For me Ultra settings are only for campaign. Most benchmarks are going to compare settings on ultra and that is why you will get atrocious frame rates. My Phenom II x4 965 BE did perfectly fine when I wasn't streaming and I could play with my settings on high (not ultra) if I wanted with the only lag being in those big 200/200 battles. If I streamed I got the awful frame rates you posted even with settings on low.

Aside from particles, I think graphics settings usually tax the GPU, not CPU. SC2 is generally a CPU bound game (which is why it's terrible for benchmarks, and why no one benchmarks it).